tv Newsmakers CSPAN January 23, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm EST
pledge where we would be which is it to funding levels of basically pre-bailout, pre- stimulus funding levels. it is true. we want to have the u.s. house of representatives on record before the president delivers his state of the union message in support of our efforts to it is not just a press release, it's a statement the united states house of representatives is making on this issue. i hope we have bipartisan support. i suspect there will be democrats that will join with us in saying bringing about this reduction is the right thing to do. we are beginning the process with that vote on tuesday. >> does this set a spot in terms of negotiation with the senate for a further continuing -- i think other people don't think this is going to happen, so is
this just setting a marker for where this is going to be? does this give the flexibility to negotiate with the president? >> as you know very well, for the first time ever, since the 1974 budget, the empowerment act was put into place, the federal government is operating without a budget having passed the congress. including the fact we have this continuing resolution that was passed with the talent levels up to march 4th of this year. we know very well the senate is in the hands of the democrats and the republicans have a majority in the house of representatives. we have made a commitment that we are going to continue to drive toward spending reduction and we're going to end up with a negotiating process on it. there is no doubt about that.
but for us to do what we said to the american people that we were going to do, that is pursued a level of spending that is pre- bailout, that is where we are going to be and that is the resolution that will pass on tuesday. we will have made it clear where we stand. >> do you plan to do one more cr for the upcoming fiscal year? >> the short answer is i don't know. it remains to be seen. it has to do with jonathan's questions about negotiations. i would like to think we could pursue a spending level that is that the 2008 funding levels, pre-bailout, pre stimulus spending. with a $14 trillion debt and deficits as far as the eye can
see, we need to get on this glidepath. but i suspect we may end up in a position where we have to have more than one continuing resolution. we don't know how long that will go at this point. these are discussions that are taking place right now. >> have the evidence in tucson changed the tenor of what you are trying to do now? >> to get the news that gabrielle giffords was able to stand and on friday, she moved to houston for her recovery, i know that they are saying she may plateau at some point, so all of the positive things we have seen taking place in the previous 13 days may not continue at the same level. but we hope and pray that they will. there was a candlelight visible -- a candlelight vigil where i
went to college and they had eight vigil the other night -- this has been a very sobering time for this institution and the american people as we have gone through it. i do think the shock has had has played a role in luring the tenor. we know that jared loughner, we don't know if he saw c-span once in his life. he appears to be deranged, but the idea -- we are just marking the 50th anniversary of john f. kennedy's inauguration. i sat on thursday, at noon, the 50th anniversary with the kennedy family right in front and listened to remarks. at the end of the ceremony, which i suspect c-span has or will be carrying, they carried
john f. kennedy's inaugural address. he said in that address that stability should not be seen as a sign of weakness. underscoring that has played a role -- i have always believed in the clash of ideas that james madison wanted us to have and rigorous debate as i engage in on the floor of the house and in the rules committee regularly. but i do think it's important to do it in the most civil way possible and we are continuing that. >> -- >> as far as the momentum, we are pursuing the things we talked about. we succeeded in passing through the house -- three democrats joined the republicans to repeal the health care bill. aid resolution calls on the four committees to begin work on this and then we will begin to have resolution 38 which will
call for us to get rid -- to go back to the 2008 spending levels. so we are on track. >> if i could take you back to the spending discussion. there is obviously momentum for spending cuts. you have the momentum with you, what do you think is going to happen when spending cuts are realized and some of the members to have been calling for larger cuts, a conservative group in the house came out with a laundry list of things they want to cut. members that people knocking on their doors, saying a transportation projects, but research into illness, this -- what do you do your constituents come to you and say we want the goal line in los angeles or we want something looked into? >> i don't want to say this in
front of susan, but this month, i began my fourth decade of susan in congress. in the three decades, i have not had a three people come into my office and make a request that we reduce the size and scope and reach of government other than through republican rallies and things like that. when people come in, they have an agenda and they want to see spending. i see that climate for the first time in that 3 -- in these three decades changing. that's not to say there will be people not coming in asking for. i had the mayor of los angeles in my office this weekend we're talking about transportation funding for california. i know that infrastructure is a priority. one of the mischaracterization
put out there -- we had a debate in the rules committee, but the moment we start talking about cutting spending, our democratic colleagues talk about the fact that the nih will be gutted and we will pursue research into terrible diseases that are out there today. we can see the poll grant program dramatically reduced and we will be denying education. the sky is falling tenor is out there. there will be an attempt to stir a lot of that up. but if you think about our quest to go to 2008 spending levels, we were able to function with 2008 spending levels and i believe even those were too high. it is not going to be easy, but i should tell you that from everything i've seen in the media with this 87 new
republicans, nine democrats, 96 people who have come to the congress, there is a sense that these people were crazy. based on a lot of the reports you saw in the media. i participated in to events for the orientation that we had and i have gotten to know a number of these people and i'm really impressed with their intelligence, dedication, patriotism and resolve to deal with the issue you have raised. that is the fact there are going to be people who are out there demanding we not bring about spending reductions. it's not going to be easy, but we are going to have to do it. >> how does cutting federal spending to fiscal 2008 create jobs? >> is very clear that if you look at the 13 trillion dollars national debt and if you look at the deficits we have right now,
the idea of diminishing the burden posed -- put on job creators and individuals, which would be a byproduct of reducing spending levels will be one that will create jobs. i believe if we, across this country and around the world, were able to -- the perception would be a very positive one if we were able to begin on getting on a path toward getting our economic house in order. by virtue of that, it would have a tremendous ripple effect. there are a number of things that need to be done going hand in hand with reducing the size, scope, and breach of government. we need to open up new markets for u.s. goods and services around the world. we have 3 pending trade agreements right now with south korea, colombia, and panama that
have been languishing for four years. they have been languishing because under speaker pelosi, she refused to bring them up. now we are in the majority and president obama is there and i'm impressed with the fact he has indicated a willingness to bring up these agreements. we want all free to be brought up. the colombian and panama deals were completed before the korea deal was done and that will create jobs in the united states. reducing the size and scope and reach of government, reducing the tax burden, getting to 2008 levels, and opening new markets and i was gratified to see the president to the peace in the "wall street journal" in which he talked about reducing the regulatory burdens out there and i'm pleased he said he wants to
work with us on tax reform. there are a litany of things coupled with going down to 2008 levels that will go along way toward job creation and economic growth. >> don't you run the risk of imperiling economic recovery if you cut spending back? >> on the contrary. i believe the economic growth we're seeing today is in spite of, not because of this stimulus package. i think to have president obama basically embrace what i call the john f. kennedy-ronald reagan vision -- it was the 50th anniversary of john f. kennedy's inauguration, the 30th anniversary of ronald reagan's inauguration -- the president did increase that -- did embrace that and his request for tax reform.
those things coupled with spending reduction will give us the kind of growth we need. >> parties talk allot about jobs and how they are not available, john boehner for months used the slogan "where are the jobs." the first thing we see is repeal of health-care law and the next day, dropping the bill to ban the offender -- to ban the federal funding of abortions and expand that banned a little bit. we're hearing on the democratic side about gun bans and handgun bans in the wake of the tucson tragedy. why isn't anyone talking about jobs right now in terms of public policy? >> i think i just have, and i have on the floor of the house regularly. our focus is on that. if you look at the $2.7 trillion spending level when it comes to
health care bill, it seems to me that our appeal which we did this week and our pursuit of allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines, associated health plans so that small businesses can have access to lower rates when it comes to insurance, expanded medical savings accounts, meaningful lawsuit abuse reform, pulling a deal with pre-existing conditions, these things will be job creators and i believe the mandates that exist in the health care bill itself, the notion of hiring additional irs agents to enforce the mandates, those things undermine job creation and economic growth. we saw the repeal of a health care bill as a very important job creation effort. i know that some try to create disconnect, but we see them as being tied very closely together. i talked about the quest for
trade agreements. i hope very much the president tuesday night will talk about both the columbia and panama agreements along with the korea agreement which we have been pushing. now that japan has reduced its top rate on job creators, its core rate, they were the largest in the world, we now have the largest tax on job creators than any country in the world, at 35%. democrats and republicans believe a reduction in that rate would go along way toward creating jobs. the fact is you're seeing these things on the house floor, the ways and means committee had a meeting this week on the tax issue. the goal is creating more jobs, so i think we have a very good chance to continue on that path and we are going to. >> with a reduction in the corporate tax rate, which also
be in favor of doing things to ensure companies are in fact paying taxes? >> of course. compliance is very important to do. i on the opening day, introduced what i called fast -- a fast and simple tax plan modeled a plan i worked with with rudy guiliani and bush 41. it takes the tax issue and its flashes them to 3 at a top rate of 40% on -- 10% in the first $40,000, 15% next and a flat 30% above that. it takes the corporate rate to 25% and i believe if we moved in that direction, we would see an enhancement of compliance, which is an important thing to do. everyone should pay their fair share, but they should not pay more than they should. >> could you do that without the
hiring of more irs agents? >> one of the things we have found is that's maybe some kind of tax holiday so we could increase compliance. but one reason we have a lack of compliance is the tax code. if we could simplify the code, it clearly could enhance the level of compliance we see today. >> does that include closing the deductibles all companies benefit from currently? >> the plan gives an option for taxpayers to use a single form. we maintain some deductions, for charitable contributions and home mortgage interest. we know they are incredibly popular. but what we also do this there are things we encourage. i have a credit for health insurance, expanded ira
retirement incentives, so there are few things we leave in place that i believe are very important. it is not just a flat tax, but it does get down to a single page. but does move to close loopholes that exist today. with a lower top rate, we will see a higher level of compliance. >> how do you get what you need to get done legislatively and keep the process open? leaders for the last couple of decades have come to the belief that closing down the amendment process, closing the rules process which you are in charge of, helps to get the job done. there of denver -- there have been promises from the republican leadership to open that up. how do you do that in a way that allows you to get your agenda? >> for the first time in the 221 year of the republic, we went through that entire congress without the bill being considered under the open man in
process. -- open amendment process. speaker boehner has said he wants a more open process and i feel very strongly about that because it is our responsibility to move our agenda, meet the commitments we made to the american people in the election, but we want to do it in the fairest, most open way possible. in the appropriations process, never before has that been shut down the way it was in the last two years. we are going to be able to do it, but it is a challenge. one of the things that i and speaker boehner have said to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle is that we are going to have a lot of work. we're going to have time spent on the floor. the easiest thing on -- the easiest thing to do is to have close rules and an up or down vote and not proceed with debate trade the job of the rules
committee is to structure the debate, with 435 class presidents, we all have our own ideas of what to do. everyone should have a chance to be heard, but it's possible for people to engage in filibuster by amendment. there is a lot of duplication, so having some kind of structure is important, but the goal is a more open process. a process that will allow us to move our agenda at the same time, which i think we can do. >> you are talking about the fact your committee is the only one that's up and running at this point. you have the experience now working with enthusiastic members of the freshman class, some of whose budget goals are more stringent. how do you see that dynamic playing out? >> i'm so impressed with these people. we saw it on the news coming in -- i hate to say it, but i cringed with some other reports
i had. but talking to these people, they're thoughtful, deliberative, patriotic, and dedicated to our quest to get the economy going, creating jobs, and reducing the size and scope of government. in a few days, we are having a reunion at the reagan library of those of us who are elected to congress 30 years ago with ronald reagan. we're having conservative members of congress, sitting members of congress, lots of new members are going to be there. we are going to have a chance to talk about this. this is part of the free-flowing debate taking place internally as well as on the house floor, but i'm convinced we're on the same page. in a perfect world, there are things -- we need to tackle entitlement reform. we know how difficult that is because it becomes a political football.
but it's absolutely essential we do that and i know these new members are dedicated to doing it. we will be having ongoing discussions as the budget proceeds on the way to get there. >> one of the most contentious issues is raising the debt ceiling. some members coming in say they will vote against it. that matter has to be resolved. how do you get there? >> it is a tough issue. one of the things we did is we repealed the rule that allows for an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. so we are going to have to have a vote. we know it has to be done. we know having the united states of america default is not an option. having said that, we don't want to proceed unless we have a commitment from the president that we are going to be able to see dramatic reductions in the level of spending. i am convinced we will be able to get there. it's not going to be easy.
that's why we are here. getting to that clash of ideas, it's there, and it's something that has to be done. discussions are going on right now. i've been involved in a lot of them. it is going to be tough, but i believe we can get there. >> what is one area where you see progress with the president? we know how republicans disagree. >> i can give you one area or i can give you several areas. i believe so passionately, when you recognize 1906 cent -- 96% of the world's consumers are outside our borders, opening that is important. the president gave a great statement at the state of the union and the issue of trade right now. after he gave these great arguments and i told him -- you made these great compelling arguments for trade but you did not say i would send these agreements to congress and want
to work with you to pass them. i believe that this year we will have a chance to do that. i mentioned tax reform. he has talked about the issue of tax reform and i believe that is a fertile ground for us to work together on. regulatory relief -- his peace in the "wall street journal" has him talking about that. we are going to enthusiastically pursued those things with the president. >> will you come back and talk with us again? >> you bet. thank you. >> david dreier was our guest. the republican majority came in saying they understood the elections did not give them a mandate. the tea party at mr. dreier talked about their goals. what are their impediment to achieving it? >> the big impediment is the
senate for house republicans. they're going to run into a democratic-led senate that is not going to agree with them on the size or scope of spending cuts that have promised to the two-party folks. almost any major initiative house republicans have, they will have to find negotiating room with said that democrats to get anything done. piecemeal, you will see health- care proposals move forward. you have the 1099 requirements that businesses report their spending of $500 or more, so you will see some of those things change. but for the most part, they will run to the senate and run to the president and a will run into their own internal battles with some of the more established republicans and folks who want them a more draconian looks at -- and more draconian look at the budget. >> how are they affected by
democrats defending 23 state -- 23 seats in the senate? people want to let the federal spending levels. does that change the way the senate might approach the house's effort? >> i think it does. many of those are moderate democrats facing tough elections. everyone will have to listen to that message and bring some of those measures up. they could be draconian for his views, but the senate cannot sit here for the next two years and blocked everything house republicans do. i also think house republicans are going to have to not just take the items on their agenda but pursue all items that do have hopes of passing the senate. >> i wish we had more time. he spoke frequently about trade as a priority and he hoped the president would bring up some languishing trade measures. some of the tea party activists are among those who are vocal critics of nafta, thinking it
has been a job killer. talk to me about the politics of trade in the gop. >> is an area where you see moderate democrats and moderate republicans coming together because they believe there is mutually beneficial trade where each country can do well as a result of what they are trading. but the liberal democrats, unions, and on the right wing, a lot of the tea party activists don't believe that a ball. they have seen job losses and attribute them to things like nafta. people will tell you about the jobs lost in the '70s and '80s based on nafta, even though nafta passed in the early '90s. i think there is a belief built up that trade has heard places even more sometimes that at has. when there are jobs created somewhere, oftentimes they're lost elsewhere in certain areas get hit harder and that's what you see in politics. >> how do they play this hand
and get reelected? >> what we have seen by a large overtime is that trade deals to get done in part because there are places where democrats and republicans have some agreement. i would be surprised if we don't see anything done in the next few years. i think the president is going to make an effort to move toward the center pretty fast as the election approaches. >> you talk about job creation and federal spending levels. were you satisfied with the answers? the think that will satisfy the public? >> i was not satisfied all. i do not see how cutting federal spending lead to job creation. rolling back federal spending will lead to public employees using their -- public employees losing their jobs in the short term. we have a very bad economy out there and very little of what republicans have said involved
measures to bring the unemployment rate down. >> well we have seen over the last couple of decades is any amount of willingness to spend money and no willingness to bring in revenue -- so we have had taxes at the same rate, capital gains, dividends, all of these things at the same rate for a long time and revenue is suffering as a result. spending has been ballooning for a long time and that's why we have the huge debt and deficits we have. aesop the chinese president this week, a lot of thought about the debt america's china. among other things, there is an underlying nervousness for employers about the state of the economy based on some of those things, the structural deficit issues. that is one of the reasons you see unemployment remaining where is and probably will not get is and probably will not get better until we ge